Test 3: Cases Flashcards
(37 cards)
Reynolds v. Simms: Facts
In 1961, M.O. Sims, David J. Vann (Vann v. Baggett), John McConnell (McConnell v. Baggett), and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. The Alabama Constitution prescribed that each county was entitled to at least one representative and that there were to be as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Population variance ratios of as great as 41-to-1 existed in the Senate.
Lucas v. Colorado: Facts
Acting on behalf of several voters in the Denver area, Andres Lucas sued various officials connected with Colorado’s elections challenging the apportionment of seats in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly. Under Colorado’s apportionment plan, the House of Representatives was apportioned on the basis of population but the apportionment of the Senate was based on a combination of population and other factors (geography, compactness and contiguity, accessibility, natural boundaries, and conformity to historical divisions). Consequently, counties with only about one-third of the State’s total population would elect a majority of the Senate; the maximum population- variance ratio would be about 3.6-to-1; and the chief metropolitan areas, with over two-thirds of the State’s population, could elect only a bare majority of the Senate. When a three-judge District Court upheld the plan, stressing its recent approval by the electorate, the Supreme Court granted Lucas certiorari.
Avery v. Midland County: Holding
The Court struck down local governmental districts inequality based their decision on the principle of “one man, one vote.”
Vieth v. Jubelirer
Be sure you know the positions of the Justices writing opinions and Scalia’s answers to each dissent|
LULAC v. Perry case: Facts
In 2003, the Texas State Legislature passed a redistricting plan that replaced the one created by a federal judge following the 2000 census. Critics of the plan charged that it was unconstitutional and violated section 2 the Voting Rights Act because it diluted racial minority voting strength and was designed to maximize partisan advantage. A three-judge district court panel disagreed, finding that the plan was constitutional and that the legislature had the right to redistrict in 2003 using census data from 2000.
Miller v. Cunningham
Fill
Allen v. Board of Education: Facts
A 1965 amendment to New York’s Education Law required public school boards to lend textbooks to elementary and secondary school students enrolled in private and parochial schools. The Board of Education for New York Central School District No. 1, contending that the law violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, filed suit against James Allen, Commissioner of Education, requesting a declaratory injunction to prevent enforcement of the statute. The trial court agreed with the board and found the statute unconstitutional. The Appellate Division reversed the ruling, finding that the boards lacked standing. On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals ruled the boards did have standing, but also found that, because the law’s purpose was to benefit all students regardless of the type of school they attended, the law did not violate the First Amendment.
Beer v. United States: Holding
Since § 5’s language clearly provides that it applies only to proposed changes in voting procedures, and since the at-large seats existed without change since 1954, those seats were not subject to review under § 5. The District Court consequently erred in holding that the plan could be rejected under § 5 solely because it did not eliminate the two at-large seats. Pp. 425 U. S. 138-139.
- A legislative reapportionment that enhances the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the
Ga. V. Ashcroft: Facts
Following the 2000 Census, the Democratic-controlled Georgia legislature passed a redistricting plan that was backed by many black leaders because it would have spread black voters and influence across several districts rather than concentrating them in a select few. Georgia’s Republican governor objected to the plan because he said it violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which discourages the dilution of minority voting strength. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the legislature’s plan.
NW Austin MUD v. Holder: Facts
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One (“Northwest”) sought a declaratory judgment exempting it from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and alternatively argued that Section 5 was unconstitutional. Section 5 prohibits “covered jurisdictions” – states and political subdivisions with histories of racial discrimination in voting – from changing their voting procedures without permission from either the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Shelby County v. Holder: Facts
The Fourteenth Amendment protects every person’s right to due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment protects citizens from having their right to vote abridged or denied due to “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not expressly granted to the federal government to the individual states. Article Four of the Constitution guarantees the right of self-government for each state.
The Civil Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization. Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts as ones that had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than 50% turnout for the 1964 presidential election. Such districts must prove to the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of a Washington, D.C. district court that the change “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect” of negatively impacting any individual’s right to vote based on race or minority status. Section 5 was originally enacted for five years, but has been continually renewed since that time.
Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that Section 5 and Section 4(b) are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the Sections and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that Congress did not exceed its powers by reauthorizing Section 5 and that Section 4(b) is still relevant to the issue of voting discrimination.
Thornburg v. Gingles: Facts
The North Carolina General Assembly passed a redistricting plan for the state’s Senate and House of Representatives. Black citizens of North Carolina alleged that the plan created seven new districts where blacks would not be able to elect representatives of their choosing. They filed suit in a District Court claiming that this violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Before the District Court could hear the case, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in order to clarify that voting violations needed only to have a “discriminatory effect” and required no “discriminatory purpose.” Considering the “totality of circumstances” of the redistricting plan, the District Court ruled that six of the new districts violated the newly amended Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of the black vote. The North Carolina Attorney General appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court.
Thomas opinion in Holder v. Hall
Make sure you know the other Justices opinions based on the note in textbook on page before Thomas opnion.
Lulac v. Perry: facts
In 2003, the Texas State Legislature passed a redistricting plan that replaced the one created by a federal judge following the 2000 census. Critics of the plan charged that it was unconstitutional and violated section 2 the Voting Rights Act because it diluted racial minority voting strength and was designed to maximize partisan advantage. A three-judge district court panel disagreed, finding that the plan was constitutional and that the legislature had the right to redistrict in 2003 using census data from 2000.
The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but while it was pending the Court decided Vieth v. Jubelirer, another redistricting case from Pennsylvania. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the deciding vote in that case, wrote that the Court could hear claims of partisan discrimination in redistricting cases, but left open the question of the test those claims would be subjected to.
The three-district panel in this case then affirmed its earlier decision, finding that the Texas redistricting plan was not substantively unfair.
Reynolds v. Simms: Question
Did Alabama’s apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances?
Reynolds v. Simms: Rule of Law
In most instances, districts should be apportioned to allow each voter to have one, undiluted vote.
Reynolds v. Simms: Holding
The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) notes that “[l]egislators represent people, not trees or acres.” If the State gives voters in one part of the State much more weight in the vote of their legislators, the right to vote of voters in underrepresented parts of the State has been diluted.
Although the federal legislature has a separate apportionment for its two houses, there is no such need at the State level. Hence, apportionment of state legislatures needs to reflect a one-person, one-vote policy.
Reynolds v. Simms: Dissent
Justice John Marshall Harlan (J. Marshall) argues that States should be allowed to determine the composition of their legislatures on their own and that this is a political question, lying outside the reach of the Supreme Court.
Lucas v. Colorado: Question
Is a majority-approved state apportionment plan that permits one house of its congress to be largely apportioned on the basis of factors other than population distribution in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
Lucas v. Colorado: Holding
Yes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires all districts to be substantially apportioned on a population bases. While noting that some deviation from strict population considerations may be permitted to offset minor underrepresentations of one group or another, the wholesale neglect of population considerations is unconstitutional. The Court added that although a majority of the Colorado electorate approved its apportionment scheme, this cannot override even a single individual’s constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote. The apportionment of Colorado’s Senate rendered population considerations virtually insignificant, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Avery v. Midland County: Facts
Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions.
Vieth v. Jubelirer: Facts
The Pennsylvania General Assembly (D) drew a map delineating the districts for the congressional elections. The map was challenged by Vieth (P) and others in court, on the basis that the creation of the districts was for the improper purpose of obtaining political advantage, or gerrymandering.
Vieth v. Jubelirer: Rule of Law
Since the process of creating districts can involve many political considerations none of which are enforceable by the courts under any constitutional provision, gerrymandering cannot be brought into a court of law as a justiciable issue.
Vieth v. Jubelirer: Holding
Yes. Since no provision under the constitution limits any political consideration during the process of district mapping by states or the Congress in any way enforceable by the courts, the claims of gerrymandering are non-justiciable. The criterion of “fairness” is not one which can be determined by law. The reason for desiring a criterion of fairness is that it is needed to set a limit on the ability of the state legislators to carve out districts, to impel the courts to use judicial discretion in such cases and to win the public approval of judicial interference in the process of lawmaking by the representatives, which is the foundation of democracy. Many different criteria have been proposed, the variety of which only confirm that there is no clear constitutional limit. The issue to be settled here is not whether such activity by the legislators which unfairly favors one party is against the constitution, but whether such a determination as well as remedy is to be done by the courts. Since 1980 five congressional bills have been introduced to provide a remedy for this perceived undesirable political maneuvering. But this kind of intention and action is a fact of life whenever districts are planned by political bodies, and the court does not intend to make a decision in these claims. The decision of the lower court is affirmed.
